linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:03:59 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched_qs writable

Good morning!

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 05:50:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:00:09PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > jiffies_till_sched_qs is useless if it's readonly as it is used to set
> > jiffies_to_sched_qs with its value regardless of first/next fqs jiffies.
> > And it should be applied immediately on change through sysfs.

It is interesting it can be setup at boot time, but not at runtime. I think
this can be mentioned in the change log that it is not really "read-only",
because it is something that can be dynamically changed as a kernel boot
parameter.

> Actually, the intent was to only allow this to be changed at boot time.
> Of course, if there is now a good reason to adjust it, it needs
> to be adjustable.  So what situation is making you want to change
> jiffies_till_sched_qs at runtime?  To what values is it proving useful
> to adjust it?  What (if any) relationships between this timeout and the
> various other RCU timeouts need to be maintained?  What changes to
> rcutorture should be applied in order to test the ability to change
> this at runtime?

I am also interested in the context, are you changing it at runtime for
experimentation? I recently was doing some performance experiments and it is
quite interesting how reducing this value can shorten grace period times :)

Joel


> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > The function for setting jiffies_to_sched_qs,
> > adjust_jiffies_till_sched_qs() will be called only if
> > the value from sysfs != ULONG_MAX. And the value won't be adjusted
> > unlike first/next fqs jiffies.
> > 
> > While at it, changed the positions of two module_param()s downward.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index a2f8ba2..a28e2fe 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -422,9 +422,7 @@ static int rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle(void)
> >   * quiescent-state help from rcu_note_context_switch().
> >   */
> >  static ulong jiffies_till_sched_qs = ULONG_MAX;
> > -module_param(jiffies_till_sched_qs, ulong, 0444);
> >  static ulong jiffies_to_sched_qs; /* See adjust_jiffies_till_sched_qs(). */
> > -module_param(jiffies_to_sched_qs, ulong, 0444); /* Display only! */
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Make sure that we give the grace-period kthread time to detect any
> > @@ -450,6 +448,18 @@ static void adjust_jiffies_till_sched_qs(void)
> >  	WRITE_ONCE(jiffies_to_sched_qs, j);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int param_set_sched_qs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> > +{
> > +	ulong j;
> > +	int ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &j);
> > +
> > +	if (!ret && j != ULONG_MAX) {
> > +		WRITE_ONCE(*(ulong *)kp->arg, j);
> > +		adjust_jiffies_till_sched_qs();
> > +	}
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int param_set_first_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> >  {
> >  	ulong j;
> > @@ -474,6 +484,11 @@ static int param_set_next_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static struct kernel_param_ops sched_qs_jiffies_ops = {
> > +	.set = param_set_sched_qs_jiffies,
> > +	.get = param_get_ulong,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static struct kernel_param_ops first_fqs_jiffies_ops = {
> >  	.set = param_set_first_fqs_jiffies,
> >  	.get = param_get_ulong,
> > @@ -484,8 +499,11 @@ static int param_set_next_fqs_jiffies(const char *val, const struct kernel_param
> >  	.get = param_get_ulong,
> >  };
> >  
> > +module_param_cb(jiffies_till_sched_qs, &sched_qs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_sched_qs, 0644);
> >  module_param_cb(jiffies_till_first_fqs, &first_fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_first_fqs, 0644);
> >  module_param_cb(jiffies_till_next_fqs, &next_fqs_jiffies_ops, &jiffies_till_next_fqs, 0644);
> > +
> > +module_param(jiffies_to_sched_qs, ulong, 0444); /* Display only! */
> >  module_param(rcu_kick_kthreads, bool, 0644);
> >  
> >  static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp));
> > -- 
> > 1.9.1
> > 
>